Federal Register / Vol. 58, No. 5 / Friday, January 8, 1993 / Rules and Regulations

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

40 CFR Part 81 (AD-FRL-4158-4)

RIN NO. 2060-AC56

Reclassification of Moderate PM-10 Nonattainment Areas to Serious Areas

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). AClION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: Under section 188(b)(1) ofthe Clean Air Act, EPA isreclassifying as serious four areas in California and one

area in Nevada which were initially classified as moderate nonattainment

areas forPM-10 (particles with an aerodynamic diameter less than or equal

to a nominal 10 micrometers). EFFECTIVE DATE: This action will become effective on February 8, 1993. ADO ESSES: The technical reports referenced in today's document can be
found in Public Docket No. A-91-53. The docket is located at the U.S. EPA Air Docket, Rm. M-1500, Waterside Mall.LE-131, 401 M St., SW., Washington, DC 20460. The docket may be inspected from 8:30 a.m. to 12 noon and from 1:30 p.m. to 3:30 p.m. on weekdays except for legal holidays, and

a reasonable fee may be charged for copying. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Eric Ginsburg, Air Quality Management Division, Mail Drop 15, Office ofAir Quality Planning and Standards, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC 27711, (919) 541-0877. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: ELECTRONICAVAILABILITY: This document is available as an electronic file on The Federal BulletinBoardat 9 a.m. the day ofpublication in the Federal Register. By modem dial 202-512-1387 or call 202-512-1530 for disks or paper copies. This file is available in Postscript, Wordperfect 5.1, and ASCII.
I, Background

On the date of enactment ofthe 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments, PM-10

areas meeting the qualifications of section 107(d)(4)(B) of the Act were designated nonattainment by operation of law [see generally, 42 U.S.C. 7407(d)(4)(B) of the Act; references in this notice to "the Act" or "the Clean Air Act" are to the Clean Air Act, as amended, 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.). These

areas included all former ;rcnup I areas identified in 52 FR 29383 (August 7, 1987) and clarified In 55 FR 45799 (October 31, 1990), and any other areas violating thePM-10 standards prior to January 1. 1989 (many of theseareas
were Identified by footnote 4 in the October 31,1990 Federal Register document). A Federal Register document announcing all ofthe areas designated nonattainment for PM-10at
enactment and classified as moderate

waspublished in 56 FR 11101 (March 15, 1991). A followup notice correcting

some ofthese areas waspublished August 8, 1991 (56 FR 37654). These nonattainment designations and moderate area classifications were codified in 40 CFR part 81 in aFederal Register document published on November 6, 1991 (56 FR 56694). All of the areas in the Nation not designated nonattainment at enactment were designated unclassifiable [see section 107(d)(4)(B)(iii) ofthe Act].

Once an area is designated nonattainment, section 188 ofthe Act outlines the process forclassification of the area and establishesthe area's attainment date. In accordance with section 188(a) ofthe Act, at thetime of designation, all PM-10 nonattainment

areas are initially classified as moderate by operation oflaw.

A moderate area can subsequently be reclassified as serious eitherbefore the applicable moderate area attainment date ifEPA determines the area cannot "practicably" attain the PM-10 NAAQS by this attainment date, or following the
passage ofthe applicable moderate area attainment date ifEPA determines the

area has failed to attain the standard.

Under the plain meaning ofthe terms ofsection 188(b)(1) ofthe Act, EPAhas general authority to reclassify at any time before the applicable attainment date any area EPA determines cannot practicably attainthe standardby such date,Accordingly, section 188(b)(1) of the Act isa general expression of delegated rulemaking authority.In addition, subparagraphs (A) and (B) of section 188(b)(1) ofthe Actmandate thatEPA reclassify "appropriate" PM-10 nonattainment areas at specified time frames (i.e., by December 31, 1991 for
the initial PM-10nonattainment areas, and within 18 months afterthe SIP submittal due date for subsequent nonattainment areas). These subparagraphs do'notrestrict EPA's general authority but simply specify that, at a minimum,it mustbe exercised
at certain times.' Any decision by EPA
toreclassify an area as serious before the applicable attainment date willbe based

(The EPA!sinterpretation oftherelasalflcation provisions in section Tas(bX1) oftheAct ws * discussed inthe proposal for today's finalruleand in the "General Preambleto Titlelof theCle Alt Act Amendments of1990," 57 FR 13537-13538 (April 16,1992). on facts specific to the nonattainment

area at issue, and will only be made afterproviding notice in the Federal Register and an opportunity for public
comment on thebasis for EPA's proposed decision.

In those cases where EPA determines that an area has failed to attain the NAAQS by the applicable attainment date, the area isreclassified as serious by operation oflaw [see section 188(b)(2) ofthe Act]. The EPA must publish anotice in theFederal Register ofsuch determinations and consequent reclassifications within 6 months following the applicable attainment date.

In accordance with section 188(b)(1)(A) ofthe Act, EPA is announcing the reclassification ofthose initial moderate nonattainment areas which EPA has determined at this time
cannot "practicably" attain the PM-10 NAAQS byDecember 31, 1994, the applicable attainment date [see section 188(c)(1) ofthe Act). As explained further below, today's action discharges EPA's statutory obligation under section 188(b)(1)(A) ofthe Act which required EPA toreclassify appropriate initial moderate PM-10 nonattainment areas as seriousby December 31, 1991.

11. DeterminingThat an Area Cannot Practicably Attain

Generally, EPA will rely on information in the State's SIP submittal. suchas the control strategy, attainment demonstration, and compliance schedule to determine whether it is practicable to attain the NAAQS in that

area by the applicable attainment date. The SIP'swhich were due on November 15, 1991 for the initial PM-10 moderate nonattainment areas were required to contain, among other requirements, a control strategy based upon the use of reasonably available control measures (RACM) which includes reasonably available control technology (RACT) [see sections 172(c)(1) and 189(a)(1)(C) oftheAct]. 2The States were also required to demonstrate that the SIP's provide for timely implementation of RACM and attainment oftheNAAQS. TheRACM mustbe implemented in the initial PM-10 nonattainment areas by December 10, 1993. and th, rvreasmust attain the standard as expeditiously as practicable, but no later than December 31, 1994, unless an area can demonstrate that attainment by thatdate

2TheRACr isa subset oftheoverarching RACM requirementIso[section 172(c(1) of theAct). The RACT nerally refersto only thetechnological Scontrol measures which apply tolarge stationary

sources. Any reference toRACM herein implicitly includes RACT. __ I llllll

II l 3334

HeinOnline -- 58 Fed. Reg. 3334 1993Federal Register / Vol. 58, No. 5 / Friday, January 8, 1993 / Rules and Regulations

is impracticable [see sections 188(c)(1) and 189(a)(1)(C) of the Act].

There are at least three reasons why

an area may notpracticably attain the standards by the applicable attainment date. First, implementation ofthe SIP control strategy, including RACM, may not create sufficient emissions reductions to bring the area into attainment. The State will have demonstrated that an initial PM-10 nonattainment area cannot practicably attain the NAAQS by the applicable attainment date ifthe implementation of RACM by December 10, 1993 will not achieve sufficient emissions reductions to attain the standards byDecember 31, 1994. The EPA has interpreted RACM, including RACT, to be those emissionreduction measures which EPAbelieves

are generally reasonable considering technological feasibility and costs of control. The State should prepare a reasoned justification to show that a particular control measure foran existing source is infeasible or otherwise unreasonable and, therefore, would not constitute RACM. 3 Otherwise, the SIP should include implementation ofall available emission reduction measures that have notbeen demonstrated to be unreasonable.

Second, nonanthropogenic sources which cannot reasonably be controlled may contribute significantly to the violation ofthe PM-10 NAAQS in the

area. Moreover, section 188(0 ofthe Act authorizes the Administrator to waive a specific attainment date for an area where the Administrator determines that nonanthropogenic sources contribute significantly to the violation ofthe PM-10 standard in the area. Section 188(0 ofthe Act also provides that theAdministrator may, on a caseby-case basis, waive certain requirements applicable to serious areas where the Administrator determines that anthropogenic sources ofPM-10 do not contribute significantly to violation ofthe PM-10 standard in the area.4Note that an area is reclassified ifEPA determines that it cannot practicably meet the applicable attainment date or that it has failed to meet such date. Thus, reclassification is keyed to a specific date. Ifthat date is waived, the

area would notbe subject to reclassification because there simply would be no date that the area cannot practicably meet orthat the area fails to

ISee the "General Preamble to TitleIof theClean AirAct Amendments of 1990," 57 FR 13540-13544 and 13560-13561 (April 16. 1992).

4The EPA has made available to the public draft guidance on the application ofthe waiver provisions under section 188(f)ofthe Act [see 57 FR 31477 (July 16. 1992)1 and will finalize that guidance at a later date. meet. Thus, while nonanthropogenic

sources which cannot be reasonably controlled may bea reason an area cannot practicably attain, ifsuch area qualifies fora waiver ofthe attainment date under section 188(f) ofthe Act, it may also be abasis for notreclassifying the area. Note that in today's action, in ordernot toundermine the waiver provision, EPA has given some consideration to Spokane's potential exclusion from reclassification under section 188(f) ofthe Act in determining whether it is "appropriate" to reclassify that area atthis time,

Third, the area may be significantly impacted by PM-10 emissions emanating from outside the United States. In the latter case, the State may demonstrate that the area qualifies for treatment under section 179B(d) ofthe Act, which provides that areas which would have attained the NAAQS by the applicable attainment date but for emissions emanating from outside the United States shall not be subject to reclassification requirements under section 188(b)(2) oftheAct (see 56 FR 58662). In such cases ofinternational transport, the State will be expected to demonstrate and quantify the international contribution ofPM-1 in the affected area. Any State containing

an area which may qualify for treatment under this provision still must timely submit a moderate area SIP for such

area. Inorder to have its moderate PM10 SIPapproved under section 179B(a) ofthe Act in addition to demonstrating that it would have timely attained the PM-10 NAAQS but for international emissions, the State must submit a moderate SIP meeting all requirements applicable to moderate PM-10 nonattainment areas other than the requirement that it demonstrate timely attainment.

The EPA may also consider reclassifying moderate areas for which a SIP has notbeen submitted whenever it becomes apparent, e.g., because ofan extensive delay in submitting the SIP, that the area cannot practicably attain the standards by theend of 1994. The EPA also may determine that an area cannot practicably attain the PM-10 NAAQS by the applicable date when the State submits an incomplete or otherwise inadequate SIP for the area, which would not assure timely attainment and the State does not act expeditiously to correct such deficiencies. The EPA hasnotified certain States oftheir failure to submit PM-10 SIP revisions for the initial areas by the November 15, 1991 deadline and has notified some States that their SIP's

are incomplete [see, e.g., 57 FR 19906 (May8, 1992)]. These actions constituted determinations under section 179(a)(1) ofthe Act and were communicated in letters to affected State Governors. As provided under section 179(a) ofthe act, States containing areas for which EPA has made such determinations have up to 18 months from EPA's determination to submit the plan or plan revisionbefore EPA is required to impose either the highway funding sanction orthe requirement to provide two-to-one new

source offsets described in section 179(b) ofthe Act.The EPA's determination also triggered the requirement for EPA to impose a Federal implementation 'planas provided under section 110(c)(1) ofthe Act. In conjunction with the possible imposition ofsanctions, EPA may propose orissue a final determination to reclassify the area as serious. Reclassification ofan area as serious does notobviate the legal requirement
to implement a moderate area SIP.5

III. Determination for Reclassification

As noted, the PM-10 reclassification provisions contain ageneral delegation ofauthority to the Administrator indicating that he "may" reclassify as serious "any" moderate nonattainment

area that he determines "cannot practicably attain" the PM-10 NAAQS bythe applicable statutory deadline [see section 188(b)(1) ofthe Act]. By its plain terms, this provision confers broad discretionary authority on the Administrator (hereafterreferred to as the "discretionary" reclassification authority). As a subsetofthat broad authority, section 188(b)(1)(A) ofthe Act mandates that the Administrator
propose to reclassify "appropriate" initial moderate nonattainment areas as serious by June 30, 1991 and take final action by December 31, 1991.6

As described above, initial moderate

area SIP's were due November 15, 1991. Thus, EPA did not have the benefit of these required SIP submittals before developing and issuing the reclassification proposal required under section 188(b)(1)(A) ofthe Act. In the absence ofbetter information, EPA used surrogate criteria as evidence ofan area's ability to timely attain and proposed to reclassify 14 areas relying

on that criteria. However, in its proposal, EPA also contemplated that it may get better information about an area's ability to attain in, for example,

5See 56 FR 58658 (November 21. 1991), note 3. 6This directive does not restrict EPA's general authority,but simply specifies that itmust be exercised, at aminimum, in accordance with certain dates for areas designated nonattainment under section 107(d)(4)(b) ofthe Act. 

### 3335

HeinOnline -- 58 Fed. Reg. 3335 19933336

the form ofthe required SIP submittals.7 Thus, EPA entertained the possibility of receiving information which rebutted the indicators (56 FR 58658; Nov. 21, 1991): Thus, while EPA believes the indicators forassessing an area's ability,

or inability, to attain area reasonable. they are rebuttable on a case-by-case basis.

Since thisproposal, EPA has received SIP's for some ofthe 14 areas identified and has received other information bearing on the determination ofwhether it is appropriate toreclassify such areas at this time.Forexample, EPA has received SIP submittals and detailed SIP work plans for some ofthe areas identified in EPA'sproposal which purport to provide for timely attainment.As noted, EPA is directed by the statute to make a final decision to reclassify appropriate areas by a date certain and that date has already passed. Due to these time constraints, EPA cannot fully review the SIP's orwait for SIP's which have not yet been submitted. On the other hand, EPA believes this information is relevant and shouldbe given at least some consideration. The EPA has reconciled this dilemma bypreliminarily reviewing the SIP submittals andother relevant information (including the public comments submitted in response to EPA's proposal). To the extent such information indicates, contrary to the criteria identified in EPA's proposal, thatthe areamay be ableto practicably attain by the end of1994, EPA is determining that itis not appropriate to reclassify thearea atthis time and, hence, has declined to take final action

on such area in today's rulemaking.

Nevertheless, EPA may conclude at a later date that one ofthese areas cannot practicably attain. For example, a full review ofthe required SIP submittal may reveal that the area cannot practicably attain. In addition, the delays in developing and submitting the required November 15, 1991 SIP submittal may become so prolonged that the area cannot practicably attain. In such instances, EPA would exercise its discretionary authority under section 188(b)(1) ofthe Actto reclassify the

area.

Note that EPA's decision notto reclassify these areas atthis time does not mean that any SIP relied on in

IThestatute dos ree specify what information EPA must consider inexercisingthe authority delegated to it bysection 168(b)(1) ofthe AcL Since the statutedoes not address thisprecise question. EPA maybase adecision that an ara cannot practicably attain by theapplicable dateon any relevant Iaformatioa, which may inlcude SIP submittals. modeling demonstrations, orother roasonable information(Chevron U.S.A. Inc. v. NPDt. 467 U.S. 837. 842-845 (1984)1. making such determination will be approved. IfaSIP purports to demonstrate attainment, that is simply strong evidence contradicting EPA's criteria and militating against reclassifying the area at that time.The EPA mayconclude after a full review of the SIP that it has deficiencies that warrant less than full approval, Further, ifsuch deficiency would preclude an
area from timely attaining, then EPA may exercise its discretionary authority to reclassify the area. In any case, no binding EPA decision about the approvability ofany such SIP will be made until the public has had an opportunity 

### to comment on such decision.

In some instances, EPA's preliminary review ofthe SIP for an area revealed that the area could notpracticably attain by the required date and should be reclassified. These are the areas reclassified in today's action. Specifically, in today'saction, EPA is reclassifying five areas (listed in Table 1and discussed below) which EPA has determined, at this time, cannot practicably attain by December 31, 1994. The EPA has notreceived public
comments or other information during the public comment period in opposition to EPA's decision to reclassify these areas.

Note that, as indicated in EPA's proposal, reclassification ofan area in

no manner obviates the obligation to submit a moderate area SIP (56 FR 58658; Nov. 21, 1991). Thus, those areas reclassified in today's action must, among other things, submit provisions to assure that reasonably available control measures (includingreasonably available control technology) are implemented no later than December 10. 1993 and submit a demonstration that attainment by December 31, 1994 is impracticable. Two areas identified in EPA's proposal have requested treatment underthe International Border provision (see section 179B ofthe Act). While EPA has notyetreceived a PM10 SIPfor eitherofthese meas, EPA has significant information suggesting that the areas may qualify for treatment undersection 179B of theAct. including

an exclusion from reclassification under section 179B(d) oftheAct8. Because

ISection 179B(d) ofthe Act states that areas demonstrating attainment of theNAAQS butfor emissions emanating from outside the United States shall not b vublect to section 18o(bX2) ofthe Act (reclassifiction for failure to attain). By amalogy to thisprovison md applying rules ofstatutory construction, ,PA will not reclassify before the applicable attainment date areas which can demonstrate attainment ofthe NAAQS but for emissions emanating from outside the United States [see section i8es(b(1) ofthe Act).First. section 179B EPA has information indicating that these areas are significantly impacted by emissions emanating from Mexico, but insufficient information to determine whether they would qualify for treatment under section 179B ofthe Act, EPA is declining to reclassify these

areas atthis time. This represents, in

some fashion, a change inposition from EPA's proposal in thatEPA believes the information currently available to EPA, standing alone, is a sufficient basis upon which to conclude that these areas should not bereclassified at this time. So as not toundermine section 179B of the Act, EPA believes it is reasonable to conclude that it is not "appropriate" to reclassify these areas at this time where there is some significant evidence suggesting that these areas may qualify foran exclusion from reclassification under that provision.

However,EPA may reclassify these

areas using its discretionary reclassification authority should EPA at

some time in the future determine, for example, that the areas cannot practicably attain and do not qualify for exclusion from reclassification under section 1798(d) oftheAct. Forexample, prolonged delays in submitting the required SIP forthese areas may lead EPA to conclude at some future time that these areas cannot practicably attain by theend of 1994.

In sum, in today's final rulemaking. EPA is reclassifying those areas which EPA hasdetermined at this time cannot practicably attain the PM-10 NAAQS by the applicable statutory attainment date. Today's action wholly discharges EPA's statutory dutyto reclassify "appropriate" moderate areas as serious by December 31, 199 Isee section 188(b)(1)(A) ofthe Act]. However, EPA also reserves the righttouse itsbroad discretionary authority under section 188(b)(1) ofthe Act toreclassify at a later date the nine areas EPA declined toreclassify in today's action. If,at times in the future before the applicable attainment date, EPA determines that such areas cannot practicably attain the PM-10 NAAQS, EPA will take final

of theAct evinces a general congressional intent not to penalize areas where emissions emanating from outside thecountry are the but4or case of the PM10 attainment problems. Further,IfEPA were to reclassify such areas before te applicable attaiment date,EPA. in effect, would be reading section 179(d) ofthe Actout of ts statute. Specifically. ifEPA proceeded to reclassify before the applicable attainment date thobe areas qMaKly o Ie t udMerstMio t70ofOw Act, an areawould never be subject to the provision in section 179B(d) oftheAct which prohibits EPA from reclassifying such areas afer theapplicable attainment date. Canoso ofstatuo construction counsel against Interpretiag thelawsuch that language is randered mere auplusage (se SS F at 58662; Nov. 21, 1991. note 12). Federal Register / Vol. 58, No. 5 / Friday, Jawaary 8, 1993 / Rules and Regulations

HeinOnline -- 58 Fed. Reg. 3336 1993

### Federal Register / Vol. 58, No. 5 / Friday, January 8, 1993 / Rules and Regulations

action toreclassify these areas. Note that areasnot reclassified today willremain rulemaking record for any future the materials in the rulemaking docket in force aspart ofthe ongoing decision toreclassify these areas for today's action pertaining to the nine utilizing EPA's discretionary authority.

TABLE 1.-AREAS WHCH EPA ISRECLASSIFYING AT THIS TIME'

EPA region Area of concern Sources

IX San JoaquinValley.CA FDO, secondary PK PB" IX Owens Valley, CA FD IX South Coast AirBasin. CA Secondary PMK FD IX Coect&*e Valley. CA FD IX Las Vegas, NV FD

PB ull c d oe for go" areas elasafied In toa'*document areScated Ina* evislons to 40CFA peat 81 alM end of tisdocument 5 FD.FuglNO dust. 3 PS

- Prascrtbed bumft.

IV.Areas Which EPA is Reclassifying at This Time CoachellaValley, California. The EPA is reclassifying the Coachella Valley nonattanment area atthis timebecause the SIP forthe area submitted to EPA by the State ofCalifornia on November 15, 1991 suggests that it is not practicable to provide for attainment ofthe annual and 24-hour PM-10 NAAQS until December 31, 1995, 1yearafter the moderate area attainment date. The PM10 SIP forthe Coachella Valley indicates that 97 percent ofthe PM-10 emissions

are due to fugitive dust sources. The most significant ofthese sources are construction activities, reentrained dust from paved roads, and windblown dust from agricultural and disturbed lands.

Las Vegas,Nevada.The EPA is reclassifying the Las Vegas nonattainment areadue tothe fact that the PM-10 SIP submitted to EPAby the State ofNevada on December 6, 1991 suggests that implementation ofthe control measures contained inthe SIP will result in sufficient emissions reductions to attain the annual PM-10 NAAQS by December 31, 1994, but that it will notbe practicable to timely attain the 24-hourPM-10 NAAQS. A 1989 valley-wide emissions inventory suggests that a substantial amount of PM-10 emissions are due to fugitive dust sources. Microinventories indicate that significant sources offugitive dust include construction activities, paved and unpaved roads, and windblown dustfrom disturbed vacant land including disturbed desert.9

9The EPAused the occasion ofthe publication ofthe PM-iO reclesslificatm proposal to request publicinput on issues relatedto Its preliminary efforts to develop a nonbinding policy addressing the section 388(f)ofthe Act PM-1O waiver provisions 156 FR5861-58662; Nov. 21, 1991). The Clark CountyHealth Disbdct submittedcomments setting out some ofIts suggestions regardingthe Implementation of 188() ofthe Act. ClarkCounty's comments address EPA'sInterpretation of anthropoenlic and nonanthxopogenlc undersection 188110 ofthe Actand do not request thatEPA alter Its proposed decision to reclassify thisarea. Moreover. ClarkCounty does substantiate to what Owens Valley, California. The EPA is reclassifying the Owens Valley nonattainment area at thistime based upon thefact that the PM-10 SIP submitted to EPA bythe State of California on January 9, 1992 suggests that the area cannot practicably attain the PM-lO standards byDecember 31, 1994. Ambient PM-10 levels in Owens Valley are among the highest in the country. In 1989, for instance, the highest 24-hourPM-10 concentration observed in the area was 1861 micrograms per cubic meter (ug/m3),in contrast to the NAAQS of 150 ug/m 3

. The PM-10 SIPfor Owens Valley includes an analysis ofwind direction andwind speed on days when PM-10 levelsare high, which indicates that the major source causingviolations ofthe PM-10 NAAQS in this area is Owens 

### Dry Lake. Owens Dry Lake covers approximately 110 square miles near the south end ofthe planning area. Approximately 60 square miles ofthe lake is dry.The Great Basin UnifiedAir Pollution Control District is currently developing and evaluating avariety of mitigation measures. The final mitigation program is scheduled for implementation in 1995.The Great Basin Unified Pollution ControlDistrict submitted comments to EPA supporting the reclassification ofthis area.

SanJoaquinValley. California. The EPA is reclassifying the San Joaquin nonattainment area due to the fact that the PM-10 SIP for San Joaquin Valley

extentthe October 25. 199 exceedance example

was infact attributableto nonanthropogenic
sources. In any evant,the county'scomments have
no bearingon today'saction which.as indicated. ultimately was based onthe SIP developed forthat
area.Finally, EPArecently made adraftofits section 188(f) ofthe Act policy available to the public andheld apublic meeting toprovidethe public with additional opportunityto comment on itscontents 157FlR 31477; July 16, 1992). That draft Indicatesthatadecision toreclassifyan areaas serious will not affect anam'seligibility for a waiver. TheEPA will consider the ClarkCounty comments addressing mction ( of theAct issues as Itreises itsdraftsection 168(f) oftheAct policy in lightofthevarious comments received. submitted to EPA by the State of California on December 24,1991 suggests that the area cannot practicably attain the PM-10 NAAQS by December 31, 1994. Moreover, the areahas not projected attainment before the December 31. 2001 serious area attainment date. Violations ofthePM-10 NAAQS in the San Joaquin Valley are dominated by two source cateories: (1) primary PM-l0 sources, including reentrained road dust, construction activities, and farming operations, and (2) secondarily-formed PM-10, including ammonium nitrate and ammonium sulfate. On dayswhen primary PM-10 emissions dominate, fugitive dustemissions account for nearly 80 percent ofthe PM-10mass. On days when secondary PM-10dominates, nitrates and sulfates account for 63 percent ofthe PM-la mass. The attainment strategy for the San Joaquin Valley willrely heavily on the control ofwidespread fugitive dust sources and the control ofprecursors ofPM-lO. including nitrogen dioxide, sulfur dioxide, and volatile organic compounds.

South CoastAirBasin,California. The EPA is reclassifying the South Coast Air Basin at thistimebecause the SIP for the SouthCoast Air Basin projects that it is notpracticable to attain the 24-hour PM-10 NAAQS until the year 2000 and attainment ofthe annual PM-10 NAAQS by the year 2006. These dates are well beyond the December 31, 1994 mderate

area attainment date. Thebasin-wide emissions inventory forthe area covers approximately 6600 square miles and indicates that 91 percent ofprimary PM10 emissions are due to area sources, primarily reentrained road dust.With projected increases in population (31 percent) and increases in vehicle miles travelled (62 percent), PM-10emissions associated withreentrained road dust

are expected to increase from 663 tons/ day In 1987to 1025 tons/day in 2010. In addition to the widespread sources of primary PM-10 emissions, source. 3337

HeinOnline -- 58 Fed. Reg. 3337 1993

### Federal Register / Vol. 58, No. 5 / Friday, January 8, 1993 / Rules and Regulations

contribution estimates indicate that secondarily-formed particles (nitrates and sulfates) can contribute as much as 52 percent ofthe 24-hourPM-10 mass and as much as 37 percent ofthe annual PM-10 mass. Therefore, the attainment strategy forthe South Coast Air Basin will also rely heavily on the control of important precursors to PM-10 including nitrogen dioxide, sulfur dioxide, and volatile organic hydrocarbons.
V. Areas Which EPA is not Reclassifying at ThisTime

While EPA is taking final action to reclassify the five areas described above, EPA is not reclassifying the nine areas listed in Table 2 at this time, including those areas which EPA has determined, in its preliminary assessment, tobe affected by international transport. Generally, EPA has information for these areas indicating that they may practicably be able to attain the PM-10 NAAQS or may be excluded from reclassification due to international transport [see section 179B(d) ofthe Act). Thus,EPA believes it is premature to reclassify these areas at this time. However, asnoted, EPA holds open the possibility ofreclassifying these areas using its discretionary authority under section 188(b)(1) ofthe Act. This will permit EPA toundertake a comprehensive review ofeach area's control strategy. The EPA anticipates that it will take final action on its proposal to reclassify these areas because they cannot practicably attain at the time it takes rulemaking action on each area's SIP.Note also that ifa PM10 SIP control strategy and demonstration have not yetbeen submitted foran area, EPA may conclude at some future date that the

area cannot practicably attain due to protracted delays in making such submittal. A more specific discussion follows below foreach ofthese nine
areas, including the significant public comments which EPA has received.

TABLE 2.-AREAS WHICH EPA Is NOT RECLASSIFYING AT THIS TIME'

EPA region Area of concern Sources

III Liberty, Lincoln, Port Vue, and Glassport Boroughs andthe City of Clairton, PA Point V Oglesby, IL Point ViII Ubby, MT FD 2

, RWC 4

. PB VIII Utah Co., UT Points IX Paul Spur, AZ Point, FD IXNogales, AZ International

, FD IX Imperial Valley, CA FD, International PB XKiamath Falls, OR FD, RWC, PB XSpokane,WA FD, PB, RWC

'The ful legal deecrtptions for those areas which EPA is not reclasstytig atthis time can be bund at 56 FR 5684 (Nov. 6, 1991). FD

- Fugitive dust.

3P13 Preecrbed buming. 4RWC

- Resldential wood combustion. In rrational

- Intemabornsl tansport of PM-tO. sPoint

- Dominam point source impact.

LibertyBorough,Pennsylvania.The EPA has determined that, at this time, it is not appropriate to reclassify the Liberty Borough nonattainment area to serious. This decision is based on comments and information received during the public comment period regarding the ability of Allegheny County to attain and maintain the PM10 standard by December 31, 1994. The decision is also based on the commitment by the Allegheny County Bureau ofAirPollution Control to submit an applicable implementation plan which demonstrates the attainment ofthePM-10 NAAQS by the moderate

area attfinment date (i.e., December 31, 1994).

The Liberty Borough nonattainment

area is comprised of Liberty, Lincoln, Port Vue, Glassport Boroughs, and the City ofClairton in Allegheny County, Pennsylvania (56 FR56823; Nov. 6, 1991). The area is heavily industrialized with a diverse mix ofsources including steel manufacturing, utilities, and industrial boilers. These sources generate both point source PM-10 emissions and fugitive dust. In 1989 and 1990, emissions control measures were implemented in the nonattainment area in addition to those measures which had been installed previously.

However, EPA has notreceived a PM10 SIP forthe Liberty Borough nonattainment area. On December 16, 1991, the EPA Regional Administrator sent a-letter notifying the Governor of Pennsylvania ofEPA's determination that the State had failed to submit the PM-10 SIP forAllegheny County by the statutory submittal date ofNovember 15, 1991 (see, e.g., 57 FR 19906, May 8, 1992). This determination started the 18-month timeclock forthe imposition ofsanctions andthe 2-year timeclock for promulgation ofa Federal implementation plan.

The EPA did receive a "PM-10 work plan" from the Allegheny County Health Department onMarch 26, 1992. The work plan commits to.attainment of the PM-10 NAAQS by the statutory attainment date ofDecember 31, 1994. It summarizes the procedures to be followed for the development of the SIP submittal, including modeling and monitoring air quality in the area, conducting an emissions inventory, and producing acontrol strategy. The work plan also establishes a schedule for SIP submittal, indicating that the schedule will be met through a cooperative effort with EPA. The schedule projects that the SIP will be submitted to EPA by June 15, 1993.

The EPA received more detailed comments on itsproposal to reclassify the Liberty Borough nonattainment area than on its proposed action on other

areas. Rather than discuss those comments andEPA's responses in detail here, EPA has placed a document in the docket accompanying this notice which describes those comments and explains further the rationale forEPA's decision not toreclassify the Liberty Borough nonattainment area as serious at this time.

Comments were received from the localair pollution control agency, the Commonwealth ofPennsylvania, affected industries, local citizens, and public interestgroups. Those commenters opposing reclassification based theirviews on assertions that recent improvements in air quality are the result oflocally-instituted controls, that EPA did not adequately consider the air quality impact ofthose controls in its decision topropose reclassification ofthis area, and that the PM-10 work plan provides evidence of the State's commitment to, and the practicability of,attaining the PM-10 3338

HeinOnline -- 58 Fed. Reg. 3338 1993Federal Register / Vol. 58, No. 5 / Friday, January 8, 1998 / Rules and Regulations

NAAQS by December 31,1994. For thesereasons, some ofthe commenters indicated that it wouldbepremature for EPA to reclassify this area. Comments. favoring reclassification were based primarily on concerns about poor air quality in the area, on disagreement as to the-cause ofrecently-observed improvements in air quality, on assertions that the State's failure to submit a SIP by the November 15, 1991 due date precludes the area's ability to timely attain the NAAQS, and on the beliefthat reclassification would best advance the goal ofexpeditious attainment ofthe NAAQS.

Briefly, EPA has based its decision on the evidence provided in theAllegheny County Health Department's work plan in support of thatarea's commitment:to attain the NAAQS by December 31, 1994. The EPA has further based its decision on the fact that commenters favoring reclassification have not provided anyevidence which rebuts the State's and county's assertions that attainment by December31, 1994 is practicable. The EPA notes in response to those favoring reclassification that reclassifying the area at this time would result in the requirement thatthe area implement additional control measures, butwould also permit the State to postpone attainment potentially up to the statutory serious area attainment date ofDecember 31, 2001.10 By not reclassifying the area as serious, EPA intends to enforce the statutory moderate arearequirement for the State
to adopt a plan which provides for attainment ofthe NAAQS as expeditiously as practicable, but not later than December 31, 1994. The EPA believes that the principal concerns expressed by the commenters favoring reclassification-the need to promote
near-term improvements in air qualityare better served by not taking final action to reclassify an area atthis time where there is some reasonable evidence that the area may practicably attain by December 31, 1994.

Spokane, Washington.The EPA is not taking final action toreclassify the Spokane nonattainment area atthis time, but will make a final decision at the time the Agency takes rulemaking action on the SIP. This will permit EPA the opportunity to comprehensively review the SIP and to assessthe claims that nonattainment in the area is attributable, at least in part, to nonanthropogenic dust storms, and that the area is potentially eligible fora

18

Section 188(b)(2) of theAct requires that such serious nonattainment areas attain theNAAQS as expeditiously as practicable, but not laterthan December 31. 2001. waiver of-the December 31, 1994 attainment date under section 188(f) of the Act, The EPAcannot reject or accept these claims atthe present time, The Agency is currently reviewing the SIP for Spokane, giving particular consideration to any anthropogenic contributions to emissions that may be reentrained during the area's dust
storms. TheEPA will determine Spokane's eligibility for awaiver ofthe moderate area attainment date under section 188(f) of theAct and will make

a final decision on reclassification when the Agency has completed its review of the area's SIP.

Comments received from 14 private citizens and government, industry, and environmental groups attribute Spokane's nonattainment status to nonanthropogenic dust storms. One
commenter asserted that these dust
storms emanate from the approximately 100,000 acres ofundeveloped, untilled land southwest ofSpokane, and to approximately 500,000 acres of farmland vulnerable to soil erosion due
to high winds. According to the Spokane County Conservation District, such soilerosion is especially prevalent after harvest and prior to the emergence of the new crop, statingthat it is not possible to prevent windblown dust during this vulnerable period. They add that, when compounded by high winds, preventing this windblown dust is "beyond the realm oflegislation or regulation."' One conservation farmer indicated, however, that farmers have been working closely with the Soil Conservation Service to mitigate the erosion to their cropland.

In addition to comments regarding nonanthropogenic sources ofPM-10 in Spokane County, 3 elected officials in Washington State, the Intermountain Grass Growers Association, 3 Spokane County public agencies, and Iprivate corporation contended thatthe severe duststorms in the Spokane nonattainment area should be treated as "exceptional events," as discussed in 40 CFR part 50,Appendix K. section 2.4. As such, the commenters believe that contributions from these dust storms should be discounted when measuring exceedances ofthe PM-10 NAAQS. Because the State has measured 7 such

occurrences during the 3-year reporting period, there is reason to believe that these events happen with a regularity which would disqualify them from
treatment as exceptional events. Again, EPA will make a final determination regarding this claim following a comprehensive review ofthe SIP

'Letter from Spokane County Conservation Districtto Ken Woodard. December 17. 1991. submittal. One commenter urged EPA to classify thisarea as serious, but did not substantively address whether the area cannot practicably attain by the applicable attainment date orthe likelihood ofthe area qualifying fora waiver ofits moderate area attainment date under section 188(f) ofthe Act.

Available information indicates that both Imperial Valley, California, and Nogales, Arizona, may qualify for treatment under the International Transport provision in section 179B of the Act due to particulate matter emanating from Mexico. While the Agency has sufficient data atthis time to verify that PM-10 originating in Mexico contributes to nonattainment in these areas, additional monitoring and air quality analysis are necessary to quantify the international contribution

so thatthe SIP's forNogales and ImperiaLValley may accurately discount international transport from their attainment demonstrations, and EPA

can correspondingly determine whether the SIP's for'the areas would be adequate to attain and maintain the PM10NAAQS but for emissions emanating fromMexico (see section 179B ofthe Act). The following is a more detailed discussion ofthe areas affected by international transport:

Imperial Valley,California. The EPA is not reclassifying the Imperial Valley nonattainment area at this time. Although the State ofCalifornia has not yet submitted a PM-10 SIP for Imperial Valley, previous reports indicate that transport from Mexicali, Mexico, may significantly contribute to elevated PM10 levels in the Valley.' 2As such, the

area may qualify for exclusion from reclassification to seriousunder section 179B(d) ofthe Act.

On December 16, 1991, the EPA Regional Administrator for Region IX sent a letter to the Governor of California notifying him of the State's failure to submit a SIP for the Imperial Valley. This notification started the 18- month timeclock which will result in the imposition ofsanctions ifEPA does notreceive a SIP [see section 179(a) of the Act). The Imperial County Air Pollution Control District is currently working with the California Air Resources Board (CARB) to develop a PM-ia SIP for this area. The SIP is scheduled tobe submitted toEPA by the

2"Draft Analysis of the ImperialCounty. California Rural Fugitive Dust Area," prepared by PE3 Associates, January 1989; "Example Level One Air Quality Analysis forParticulate Matter State Implementation Plan Revisions (Imperial Valley, Cifornia)," State ofCalifornia Air Resources Board, March 1988; "Draft Program Plan for the Imperial Valley/Mexicali Particulate Matter Sources Apportionment Study." Desert Research Institute, December 20, 1991. 3339

HeinOnline -- 58 Fed. Reg. 3339 1993Federal Register / Vol. 58, No. 5 / Friday, January 8, 1993 / Rules and Regulations

end of 1992. In addition, EPA and CARB will be conducting a PM-10 source apportionment study In the Imperial Valley/Mexicali air basin in cooperation with the Imperial County Air Pollution Control District and the Secretary of Social Development in Mexico. The objectives ofthe study are to: (1) estimate the spatial and temporal distributions ofPM-10 concentrations in the Imperial Valley and Mexicali; (2) apportion PM-10 concentrations to

source emissions; and (3) estimate crossborder transport ofPM-10. The monitoring portion ofthe study began

on March 10, 1992.

Nogales,Arizona.The EPA is not taking final action to reclassify the Nogales nonattainment area at this time. Despite the fact that the State ofArizona hasnot yet submitted a PM-10 SIP for Nogales, previous studies by the Arizona Department ofEnvironmental Quality indicate that transport from Nogales, Mexico, may significantly contribute to elevated PM-10 levels in the nonattainment area.t3 As such, the

area may qualify for exclusion from reclassification as serious under section 179B(d).

On December 16, 1991, the EPA Regional Administrator for Region IX
sent a letter to the Governor ofArizona notifying him ofthe State's failure to submit a SIP for Nogales. This notification started the 18-month timeclock which will result in the imposition of sanctions ifEPA does not receive a SIP [see section 179(a) ofthe Act]. The Arizona Department of Environmental Quality intends to submit a SIP by the end of 1992. They also planned to initiate aproject in the

summer of1992 to provide additional emissions inventory data and source contribution estimates forthe Nogales

area.

The SIP's submitted for the remaining 5 areas contain control strategy demonstrations purporting to show that the NAAQS will be attained by December 31, 1994. The Agency is reviewing the public comments received forthese areas, as well as the SIP control strategies and, as stated previously, will make a determination concerning reclassification upon taking rulemaking action on the SIP's. Further discussion ofthese areas follows below.

KlamathFalls,Oregon.Based upon EPA's preliminary review ofthe PM-10 SIP submitted in response to the November 15, 1991 SIP requirement, EPA, at this time, supports the State's

""Preliminary Investigation ofCauses and Extent oftheNogales. Arizona PM-lO Problem." Arizona Department ofEnvironmental Quality. September 1990 determination that the nonattainment

area will practicably attain the NAAQS by December 31, 1994. Onecomment
was received from the Oregon Department ofEnvironmental Quality opposing reclassification. The commenter asserted that the PM-10 SIP submittal includes the necessary air pollution control provisions and a demonstration that attainment ofthe NAAQS by December 31, 1994.

Libby, Montana.Based upon EPA's preliminaryreview ofthe area's PM-10 SIP submitted in response to the November 15, 1991 SIP requirement, EPA, at thistime, supports Montana's determination that the Libby nonattainment area will practicably attain the NAAQS by December 31, 1994. The Montana Department of Health and Environmental Sciences submitted comments opposing reclassification. The commenter contended that the SIP contains an adequate control strategy. including point source permit modification, and that it would bepremature to reclassify
at this time.

Oglesby,Illinois.Based upon EPA's preliminary review ofthe PM-10 SIP for this area, EPA at this time supports the State's determination that the nonattainment area will practicably attain the NAAQS by December 31. 1994. The EPA is currently evaluating the SIPand will make a final determination about reclassifying the

areabecause it cannot practicably attain when EPA takes formalaction on the submittal.

PaulSpur,Arizona.Based upon EPA's preliminary review of the SIP submitted forthis area, EPA, at this time, supports Arizona's determination that the nonattainment area will practicably attain the NAAQS by December 31, 1994. The Arizona Department ofEnvironmental Quality
opposes reclassification based upon EPA's design value criteria [see 56 FR 58658; Nov. 21, 19911 and its beliefthat EPA should review the SIP before deciding to reclassify the area. One comment received from aprivate corporation adds that significant improvements to air quality have already been made withthe imposition ofcontrol measures as indicated by the data from 1988 through the third quarter of 1991. Further control measures, the
commenter claims, are outlined In the SIP revision. Utah County, Utah.Following EPA's preliminary review ofthe PM-10 SIP submitted forthis area in response to
the November 15, 1991 SIPrequirement, EPA, atthis time, supports Utah's determination that thenonattainment

area will practicably attain the NAAQS by December 31, 1994. The State of Utah's Department ofEnvironmental Quality opposes reclassification based

on its beliefthat the PM-10 SIPrevision provides for emissions reductions sufficient to demonstrate attainment by December 31, 1994. The commenter states that EPA should be fair in giving Utah County the opportunity to show such attainment.

VI. Effect ofReclassification

Additional SIP revisions are required under section 189(b) ofthe Act for the nonattainment areas that are reclassified to serious. First, regulations requiring the use ofbest available control

measures (BACM), including "the application ofbest available control technology (BACT) to existing stationary sources," must be adopted and submitted to EPA within 18 months after the area is reclassified to serious [section 189(b)(2) ofthe Act].'4The BACM requirement mustbe implemented within 4 years after the

area is reclassified [section 189(b)(1)(B) ofthe Act]. Second, the State must submit a SIP revision within 4 years after reclassification of the area (within 18 months afterreclassification for failure to attain) that includes a demonstration that the plan will attain the PM-10 NAAQS by December 31, 2001 [see sections 188(c)(2), 189(b)(1)(A)(i), and 189(b)(2) of the Act].15 Third, section 189(b)(3) ofthe Actprovides that "for any Serious Area, the terms 'major source' and 'major stationary source' include any stationary

source orgroup of stationary sources located within a contiguous area and under common control that emits, or has the potential to emit, at least 70 tons per year ofPM-10." This provision requires, among other things, smaller

new and modified sources (those with the potential to emit 70tons per year or greater, rather than 100 tons per year or

'4As with RACM and RACT, BACT is asubset of
the overarching BACM requirement. The BACT generally refers tothe technological control

measures which apply to large stationary sources. Thus. any reference to BACM herein implicitly includes BACT.

IsAlternatively, the State must demonstrate that attainment by December 31. 2001. is impracticable. that the plan provides for attainment by the most expeditious alternative date practicable (butno -
more than 5 years after the serious area attainment date), and thatthe section 18a(e) ofthe Act requirements forreceiving an extension ofthe attainmet date have been satisfied (i.e.. the plan includes the most stringent measures that are included in the implementation plan ofany State

or areachieved in practice in any State andcan feasibly be implemented in the area)lsee section 189 (b)(1)(A)(ii) ofthe Actl. Areas that are reclassified under section 188(b)(2) oftheAct following failure toattain must submit attainment demonstarations within 18 monthsafter reclassification to serious [see section 189(b)(2) ofthe Act]. 3340

HeinOnline -- 58 Fed. Reg. 3340 1993Federal Register / Vol. 58, No. 5 / Friday, January 8, 1993 / Rules and Regulations

greater) to obtain section 172(c)(5) ofthe Act construction permits which include requirements to comply with lowest achievable emission rates and to obtain emission offsets [see sections 172(c)(5) and 173 ofAct].

Where an area is being reclassified to serious, it may bereasonable for States
to consider therelationship ofRACM to BACM for the affected sources. The EPA discussed this relationship in the proposal for today's action (see 56 FR 58660-58661; Nov. 21, 1991). The EPA anticipates that BACM for area sources will generally be additive to ornot significantly incompatible with RACM for these sources.' 6 Therefore, the moderate area SIP's forthe areas which EPA is reclassifying should continue to implement the requirements for the application ofRACM to appropriate

sources. After reclassification to serious, additional regulations which require BACM must be adopted and submitted within 18 months and implemented within 4 years, as stated above.

VII. Miscellaneous

A. Executive Orders

Under Executive Order 12291, EPA has determined that this action is not "major" because reclassification ofthe areas does nothave an annual effect on the economy of$100 million ormore, would not cause a major increase in prices, and would nothave asignificant adverse impact on competition orthe ability ofUnited States enterprises to compete with foreign enterprises. This notice and the November 21, 1991 proposal were submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) as required by Executive Order 12291. Any written comments from OMB and written EPA responses to those comments are included in the docket. Similarly, any written comments from OMB regarding today's final action, and any written responses,have been placed in the docket. This action does not contain any information collection requirements subject to OMB review under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980 (44 U.S.C. sections 3501 et seq.), A federalism assessment under Executive Order 12612 is not requird for this action since this action was directed under section 188(b)(1)(A) of. the Act.
B. RegulatoryFlexibility Act Under 5 U.S.C. section 605(b), the Administrator has certified that redesignations do not have a significant economic impact on a substantial numberof small entities (see 46 FR 8709). BecaUse the regulatory Impact of reclassifications under section 188(b) of the Act is no different substantively from,that associated with designations, such actions are also not expected to have significant impacts on small entities.

List of Subjects in40 CFR Part 81

Airpollution control, National parks. Wilderness areas.
Dated: November 18, 1992.

WilliamK.Reilly, Administrator.

PART 81-AMENDED]

1.The authority citation for part 81 continues toread as follows:

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7407, 7501-7515, 7601.

2. Section 81.305 is amended by revising the table for California--PM-10,
toread as follows:

§81.305 Calfornia.

*t * t *t a

CALIFORNA.-PM-10. Nonattainment Areas

Designated area Designation Classification

Date Type Date Type

Inyo County

Owens Valley planning area
................................................................................. 11/16/90 Nonattalnment 02/08/93 Serious. Hydrologic Unit #18090103 San Bernardino, Inyo,and Kern Counties

Searles Valley planning area

............................................................... i

.................. 11/16/90 Nonattalnment 11/15/90 Moderate. Hydrologic Unit #18090205 Mono County

Mammoth Lake planning area 1115/90 Nonattalnment 11/15/90 Moderate.

Includes the following sections:

a. Sections 1-12,17, and 18 of TownshipT4S, R28E; b.Sections 25-38 of Township T3S, R28E;
c.Sections 25-3 of TownshipT3S, R27E; d. Sections 1-18of Township T4S. R27E; and
e. Sections 25 and 36of Township T3S. R26E Fresno. Kern. Kings, Tulare, SanJoaquin. Stanislaus. Madera Counties

San Joaquin Valleyplanning area .......................................................................... 11/15/90 Nonattailnment 02/08/93 Serious. Riverside, Los Angeles. Orange, and San Bernardino Counties

South Coast Air Basin

.......................................................................................... 11/16/90 Nonattlnment 02/08/93 Serious. Riverside County

Coachella Valley planning area
............................................................................... 1115/90 Nonattalnment 02/8/93 Serious. Imperial County

Imperial Valley planning area
.................................................................................. 1115/90 Nonattainment 1115/90 Moderate. Rest of State

.............................................................................................................. 11 15/90 Unclasslfilable

1 6The EPA also discussed the relationship between RACM and BACM in the "General ' Preamble to TitleI ofthe 1990Clean AirAct Amendments." 57 FR 13544 (April 16. 1992). Specifically. EPA indicated that itmay be reasonable for Statescontaining areas thatwill be reclassified asserious to consider the compatibility ofRACM and RACTwith BACM and BACT that ultimatelywill be implemented under the serious

area plans for these areas.The EPA indicatedthat States containing such areasneed not require major changes tocontrol systemsforspecificstack and process sources in theaffected modeaes area SIP's where theydemonstrate ihat suchchanges will be significantly incompltiblewith theapplication of BACT-level controlsystems. 3341

HeinOnline -- 58 Fed. Reg. 3341 19933342 Federal Register / Vol. 58, No. 5 / Friday, January 8, 1993 / Rules and Regulations

* " 3. Section 81.329 is amended by 181.329 Nevad& revising the table for Nevada-PM-10,

- * to read as follows:

NEVADA.-PM-10 NONATA#IMENT AREAS

Designated area Desgnation Cbmeat OType TeDate T

Wi"ho Comty

Rena planning area ............. ........................................ 11/15/90 Nonattainment fl/ISO Modame.

Hyd ographic area87 ClarkCounty

Las Vegas planning area

........................ li/sO tr feuw"nmnlt O2I08/93 Sedou.

Hydrographc Area 212 Rest of State

..................................................... ....... ....... . 11/15/M0 Uncla fable

* * * * *

[FR Doc. 93-375 Filed 1-7--93. 8.45 am]

BILLING CODE 6660-6"

HeinOnline -- 58 Fed. Reg. 3342 1993